Talk:Buddhism and evolution

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ar92597. Peer reviewers: Disha08.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional Views edit

I removed the following sentence:"Such interpretations are supported by the fact that there is no apparent reason why the Buddha would describe the creation of the world to Vasettha yet remain pointedly silent on the same question when it was directed to him at another time."

Cf.: [1] (beginning at "A beautiful story about Gautam Buddha...")

Yonderboy 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

i think i remember another story where in the same passage that said that when the beings came down on earth, one being came down, this person (male) lived in castle or a large house. and he was alone on earth, and he thought 'i want another being to accomany me, so that i am not lonely' and as he thought that another being came down from the realm of radiance, who had already exhausted they good karma. as he thought more, more beings came down.

he said to the other beings that me is the creator for he was the first one here and by the sheer will of his thoughts he created the other beings.

well the story went someone like that or i read it somewhere and it was something like that. maybe i read this on wikipeida on an other article.

Pro-Buddhist bias

This article seems to be a bit pro-Buddhist... and it doesn't have any citations. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Saimdusan is correct. We are not getting to see the real evolution theory of Buddhism at all.. Whatever we read here is "buddhists agree, they disagree, they say that, they won't say this", no theories at all! Bladesmulti (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul of article

I hope this wasn't too bold of me, but I cut out most of the non-neutral, block-of-text that made up the article previously and put it after a basic statement of the mainstream Buddhist perspective on evolution. Sorry if I've offended the author of the essay; it was a great read, but most of it wasn't right for an article. --Dammit McFadden (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, it still lacks proper citations. It does cite Buddhist scriptures - maybe I'm thick, but - I really don't see the correlation between the text and evolutionary theory. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just found this article, and after reading it (and this talk page) decided to go look at the original article. I think the first draft was much better. 68.53.56.209 (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the scriptures go, you're right, they don't really deal with "Buddhism and evolution". They're more about cosmology, and I think they were the subject of the original article because the idea of evolution is often seen in terms of the whole evolution/creationism debate. Once this article is fixed up and properly sourced, should it be incorporated into the Buddhist cosmology entry? For now, though, at least we can take the NPOV tag down. Thanks! --Dammit McFadden (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article doesn't seem to be clear on the fact that the Big Bang is not part of evolution. It in fact only explains the diversity of life, it doesn't explain its origin (that's abiogenesis), so it's strange to suggest that it gets into cosmology. Nor does evolution contradict or is particularly relevant to the idea of a creator god, which is also addressed in the article. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 07:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

abhidharma cosmology

not sure where to find secondary sources on this, but reading Vasubhandu's kosha didn't give me much conviction on the compatibility of traditional buddhist cosmology and contermporaty science, particularly evolution - classes of beings like humans, various classes of gods, animals etc are taken to be ethernal arhetypes, which arise in the opposite order during the formation of a new 'universe' - first what they see as higher, and in particular humans BEFORE animals etc. I didn't notice any hints of evolution, rather the tone seems to be that of degeneration. I could quote kosha but that's a primary source so I guess that's insufficient for wikipedia? Aryah (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

But what about Reincarnation?

Doesn't evolution imply a start to life? (Meaning, we go from the first single celled organism to all of the various forms of life today) This implies that at one point there was not life. Therefore, how can reincarnation work? I know Buddhism does differentiate between sentient life and inanimate things, so how could this process of reincarnation start? What caused it to start? (and I do understand the whole concept of each separate being being a sort of bundle of consiousness, which can be added to and taken away from, but): How do you explain stating from one single celled organism to billions of organisms of millions of varieties? (just as a side note, this is where the Theists [Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Deists, et cetera] have a great point: you can't just have things exist out of nothing for no reason. Either the universe and life are eternal, or there was a First Cause, an Unmoved Mover to start it.) I would be very interseted to know what Buddhists (and Hindus, but they are actually Theists as well) thought about how reincarnation fits into evolution (not just in the "evolution of the soul" concept, but in the light of ultimate origins). Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 16:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gideon.judges7 (talk • contribs)

Bizarre assumption

"The Buddha does not talk about a specific earth, but about earthlike planets in general."

That's real perculiar then how he kept refering to "this world". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.62.23 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Rebirth in the lead

Ccasci wants to add the statement in the lead that [[Rebirth (Buddhism) | Rebirth]] is a major principle of Buddhism that does contradict evolution see diff. First of all, this is wrong per WP:LEAD, as rebirth is not discussed in the body of the article and thus should not be mentioned in the lead. Second, this claim was added to a sentence that's already supported by sources, although the claim does not appear in the sources as far as I can tell, so it's deceptive. Third, this material that Ccasci wants to add:

However, in the basic concept of [[Rebirth (Buddhism) | Rebirth]], lives cycles between a large number of states with human and animals as two distinct states. There is no such distinction in evolution and live on earth originated from very simple forms.

Also added to the lead although it's not discussed in the body, is pure original research. This is the editor's interpretation of how rebirth might conceivably contradict the theory of evolution. I have a perfectly good theory about why it does not. I'm not putting it in here, though, because I don't have sourcing for it. I have no objection to the material per se and it might well be true that someone other than this editor thinks that the concept of rebirth contradicts the theory of evolution. If that's the case the thing to do is find those sources, write some material for the body of this article based on them, and then summarize it in the lead. I ask the editor not to keep reinserting unsourced material per WP:BURDEN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Unless Ccasci has source. But still it shouldn't be added to lead. However, this lead still require some more improvement. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No question but that it all needs improvement. I just don't want it to get worse before someone gets around to it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. If possible, you should attempt to re-write lead. Good luck with that. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I should find source that says what I have to say. But you understand ref [1][2] saying buddhism has no contradiction to evolution is just obviously wrong. Perhaps Chinese reference have it.Ccasci (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources say that Buddhists have no problem with evolution, not that "Buddhism has no contradiction to evolution." So both could be right. Anyway, I'm glad you recognize that if you want to put material in here about the concept of rebirth contradicting evolution you need sources. alf laylah wa laylah

Ccasci is correct, we may replace the current line with "In a survey, 85% of buddhists supported evolution theory." Bladesmulti (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would we do that? One of the sources says explicitly that "Buddhism is not hostile to biology, psychology, physics, or cosmology." does that not justify the statement in the lead that "As no major principles of Buddhism contradict it, many Buddhists tacitly accept the theory of evolution."? Your suggestion seems far too specific for a lead sentence.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Plus Ccasci is essentially wrong. Buddhism and the theory of evolution have been seen as compatible since at least the 19th century, even if this article is so poorly written that it's impossible to tell. Thus I propose that we don't make any changes on the basis of Ccasci's assertions until Ccasci brings sources to bear.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

CCasci has presented a typical thought. He assumed that how buddhist scriptures can deny the darwin's theory? Which is correct, all Buddhist scriptures are older than Darwin. Remember that is one typical thought. If there is some sort of scholarly or even religious leader's opinion that Buddhist scriptures really don't reject Darwin's theory. It will be noted, and the writing style should be something like, "According to Mr. A, Buddhism is not hostile to biology, psychology, physics, or cosmology." Or "According to scholars(or religious leader) like Mr. A, Buddhism is not hostile to biology, psychology, physics, or cosmology." If this is a fact, or widely accepted note, write it as "Commonly it is considered that Buddhism is not hostile to biology, psychology, physics, or cosmology." That's how it should be done. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unclear why this article exists

It's unclear why this article exists. Unlike Christianity, there has been no historical conflict between Buddhism and evolution. Furthermore, the presentation of Buddhism as a monolithic religion is completely inaccurate and gives the reader absolutely false conceptions of Buddhism. Finally, the article appears to barely talk about the theory of evolution! (For example, one part is talking about the origin of the Universe instead!) I would also add that, as with many Wikipedia articles on Buddhism, this page presents the Dalai Lama as though his word is the canonical Buddhist point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.27.96 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)